Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

quarterbuck writes "Bloomberg has a story on Google's acquisition of Motorola and quotes IP lawyers who claim that 18 patents dating to 1994 are probably what Google is after. These patents cover technology essential to the mobile-device industry, including location services, antenna designs, e-mail transmission, touchscreen motions, software-application management and third-generation wireless."

Reasons for not buying a TouchPad, a more than capable piece of hardware that is perfectly functional, lets you browse the interwebs, run photo slideshows, play media files, etc. etc. so even if it's not exactly a Galaxy Tab it still makes for a kick-ass digital photoframe?

1. Hardware: Bulkier, lower battery life, just one camera.2. Software: There's not as many

Your comment is just as bad as the article.
I love my iPad 2, and loved the original iPad before it, but for $100, the TouchPad is pretty damn awesome. I would've gotten one just for a picture frame if I could have gotten my hands on one.

I'm not saying the tablet was not pretty nice. But I really can't see owning one... are you sure you can't get a better digital frame for $100 these days?

I am as guilty as anyone here of buying gadgets at various times that were interesting but then just sat around. Already having an iPad I couldn't see that I would ever use this. I thought about buying one for my parents but that seemed more like a curse than a blessing. Basically there are a lot of ways $100 can be better spent, including as part of a

are you sure you can't get a better digital frame for $100 these days?

Quite sure.

For one thing, the vast majority of the digital photo frames out there do not have built-in batteries. That means you can't just pass it around (without strangling people with the cord).For another, most don't do video beyond a subset of 640x480.Add another.. say somebody likes the picture, and would like a copy? Most digital photo frames, you're screwed. Remove the card, stick it into a computer, find the picture again, etc

I stopped reading Forbes when they started gushing repeatedly about facebook without disclosing in any of the articles that they are owned by Elevation Partners, which has a significant stake in facebook (1%+, if I recall). Fred Anderson, former Executive VP and CFO of Apple is a founding member of Elevation Partners, so I guess that explains the current gushing about iStuff...

5,311,516 [uspto.gov] Paging System Using Message Fragmentation to Redistribute Traffic5,319,712 [uspto.gov] Method and Apparatus for Providing Cryptographic Protection of Data Stream in a Communication System5,490,230 [uspto.gov] Digital Speech Coder Having Optimized Signal Energy Parameters5,572,193 [uspto.gov] Method for Authentication and Protection of Subscribers in Telecommunications Systems6,175,559 [uspto.gov] Method for Generating Preamble Sequences in a Code Division Multiple Access System6,359,898 [uspto.gov] Method for Performing a Countdown Function During a Mobile-Originated Transfer for a Packet Radio System

5,359,317 [uspto.gov] Method and apparatus for selectively storing a portion of a received message in a selective call receiver5,636,223 [uspto.gov] Methods of adaptive channel access attempts6,246,697 [uspto.gov] Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal6,246,862 [uspto.gov] Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device6,272,333 [uspto.gov] Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data7,751,826 [uspto.gov] System and method for E911 location privacy protection

Yep. It's amazing how little e-mail has changed since it was invented in the mid-sixties [multicians.org]. (Incidentally, that link also reveals to the young computer history student that unsolicited mass mailings date to 1971, and unsolicited commercial mass mailings date to 1978. Feel free to pick which one is spammier in your mind.)

Yes, but spam didn't become a major phenomena until two Utah lawyers published a book on how to make money fast by plundering Usenet, just as e-mail viruses didn't proliferate until Outlook, the Sendmail and Vax Mail scripting bugs notwithstanding.

The good news is that Queen Elizabeth didn't start using e-mail until 1974, so she's not to blame for unsolicited mass mailings.

because none was needed. until a pair of low life bottom-feeding douche bag lawyers [wikimedia.org] spammed usenet with their green card lottery spew (repeatedly,) and "inspired" millions of other bottom-feeders to copy their exploits (effectively destroyed usenet and e-mail as an useful communication medium,) spam was unheard of. (no, don't get me started on AoL'ers)

Like almost everything that's been patented in the last twenty years, A) this wasn't really new, it was just new on the internet*, and B) it was obvious enough that someone else would have done it shortly thereafter anyway.

1994 and 2400 baud? You were behind the times. In 1994, 14.4kbps was standard and 28.8kbps wasn't uncommon. That's the era of the P75 - P100 socket 5 Pentiums with 4-16MB ram, double or quad-speed CD ROMs, and 14" - 17" CRTs with a maximum resolution of 1024x768 or 1280x1024. With a good graphics card (3dfx Voodoo Rush or Riva TNT), you *might* have gotten 640x480 Quake at 30 fps. Back then, AOL really did suck - 700ms+ ping times and per-hour billing.

Except that no conclusion about the patents validity was being made at all (well until you jumped in I guess).

Just that one person thought an email patent at that time is strange, and one person did not. Neither making any comment about the validity or not. And a comment on general patents, not on the ones in question.

No, implying that having a patent from 1994 related to email transmission isn't strange, since email transmission was decades old at the time so you would expect there to be patents left and right. And since there are numerous patents for things that clearly were invented by someone else earlier there's bound to be huge numbers of them for decades old technology.

Though yes any from 1994 would have to be invalid since nothing non-obvious had been done in the 20 years prior, but that wasn't the point. Lots wa

Its still Microsoft's Patents vs Motorola's Android Devices. Google's purchasing of Motorola Mobility doesnt "counter" shit because Google doesnt have any relevant patents of its own.

If Google were to purchase ANOTHER portfolio of mobile patents that could be combined with Motorola's.. then that might have a chance at helping to counter the lawsuits.. as it stands tho, absolutely nothing has changed.

..and just to be clear, the pending lawsuits are against actual devices which run Android, they are not a

I just got the same feeling that my professor in Computer Languages 101 must have gotten (around 1994)when I asked the following question after hetold us that he programmed the first compiler 196X...I asked, but "what language did you use to program the compiler?""HEX, young (ignorant) man, we programmed it in HEX"

Early computers used Octal, not Hex, and technically the language would have been the instruction set not the format of entry. I also suspect your professor was confusing assemblers with compilers. I will also have to deduct marks from your professor for poor use of language.

The game is simple. Take an old existing concept (email). Find some simple way to adapt it to a modern UI (regex match URLs, numbers etc.). Incorporate this into your GUI (highlight the text). Voila! You now have a feature that is patentable.

Motorola's "18 patents" include several that could apply to email:Method and apparatus for communicating summarized data, System for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless clie

Some of those patents are encumbered by FRAND : Fair, Reasonnable and Non Discrimatory.Such patents are essentiel to a global normalisation in which participant have to disclose their related patents and licence them in a fair, reasonnable and non discriminatory way. You can use them to get royalties but you'll have a hard time using them to block someone.

Remember, in Nokia vs Apple, Apple settlement rather quickly. In Apple vs Motorola, the litigation is still pending. So it seems that Apple considers those patents are rather weak.

At last, remember, Google bought Motorola also because it threatened OTHER ANDROID licensees !!!

You should read your own links - "Not Conclusive" is not the same as "OMG THOSE PATENTS ARE FRAND PATENTS".
GP kept going on (5 different posts) about how those patents are FRAND patents - I called him on it, as no court has yet ruled that those patents are indeed FRAND patents (and no one has posted what those FRAND patents are supposed to be). Whats the problem with that? He's [i]still[/i] full of shit because there is [i]still[/i] no evidence that those are FRAND patents.

Some of those patents are encumbered by FRAND : Fair, Reasonnable and Non Discrimatory.Such patents are essentiel to a global normalisation in which participant have to disclose their related patents and licence them in a fair, reasonnable and non discriminatory way. You can use them to get royalties but you'll have a hard time using them to block someone.

But would these patents be good for defense, and not in a "mutually assured destruction" kind of way? Do they act as anti-weaponry and nullify the attacks of Apple, Microsoft and others?

If so, then Google may still be able to utilize Zerg tactics, using defenses to delay offensive manuevers, while building a massive swarm that engulfs the battlefield. Yes, I see Google as the Zerg, Apple are the Protoss, and Microsoft are the Terrans.

Sure, but they have acquired 17,000 granted patents and 7,000 pending ones.

The whole reason they mention these 18 is because it's not about volume, it's about content and quality of the patents. How many are for things like special case screws, or things related only to interacting with cable systems?

The list of 18 is an attempt to suss out which patents actually MATTER. Note that in any of the large lawsuits we are talking about, it's not Apple or Microsoft using 4000 pate

A FRAND encumbered patent can mostly allow obtaining licensing revenues. The only defense would be to enter a cross licensing deal where both party are avoiding paying licenses to each other.

There are 3 kinds of entities attacking Android:- Apple wants Android blocked or at least some of its feature. Apple want to keep very distinctive feature to itself and does not intend to license them. A FRAND patent would help have Apple pay licensing fees, like it did for Nokia but it would not have Apple stop trying

Citation oh so badly needed! AFAIK, no one has yet come forward identifying any of those 17000 patents as FRAND. Last I checked, FRAND patents are few and far between - something on the order of 300k patents for every 1 FRAND patent.

It can't possibly because Motorola is a huge manufacturer of mobile phones and Google, as they have shown many times in the past, is interested in further diversifying their product line beyond software (well, really just ads) and expanding into the more difficult to get into but also much more stable field of hardware in order to deploy their Android platform in a more consistent manner, can it? No, surely it must just be for this patent portfolio. After all, patents are the only thing of value these days.

Obviously, getting into the hardware market was one of the driving forces to buy Motorola Mobility, but there is a reason they looked to buy the oldest mobile phone maker. They knew that if they were going to jump into the hardware market that they would be jumping off the sidelines and into the fire of Apple. The patents they acquired allow them to jump into the market while giving them the firepower to force Apple to stand down.

These companies don't care about talent. I bet the Palm division has a bunch of attractive patents related to touchscreen interfaces: the first Palm pilot was released in 1996 [wikipedia.org]. Honestly patents are worth so much these days that I doubt that HP would be willing to sell them.

"Apple also filed a civil suit in March accusing Motorola Mobility of 'a pattern of unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive conduct' ".
Does anyone else see this as a hypocritical statement considering what Apple has been doing suing the pants off anyone who makes a smart phone or tablet?

You mean they all look like different size touchscreens? Kinda how all TVs or flat screen monitors look the same? Quit being a fan boy and be realistic. They look similar just like many other tech products, but they run different OS, have different internal workings including the processors, different cameras, (every Samsung and HTC both are better), provide different screen resolutions (Samsung and HTC can both do 1080p, Apple can only do 720p). Shall I go on with the differences?

Perhaps quasius was confusing maintenance fees, reissues, and a lot of other obscure aspects of U.S. patent law that aren't discussed very often even on Slashdot. A U.S. patent lasts 3.5 years after issue, with three renewals [uspto.gov] available at extra cost. The first two renewals are 4 years each, and the third is to 20 years after filing or 17 years after issue.

5 for design, actually - so yes, in 2006 you could make an MP3 player that looked like the original iPod (but only in looks - functionality is covered by a different set of patents). Heck, it was speculated back then if the iPod competitors would look like the original iPod.

And patent law's really strange enough - it's 20 years after filing, or 17 years after approval, depending on when the patent was actually filed. We're coming to the end of

(FTFA)"In a patent-infringement case that started today at the International Trade Commission, Microsoft
accused Motorola Mobility of infringing seven of its patents and requested a halt to imports of certain
Motorola phones. The trial is the first smartphone dispute to be heard since Google announced it would
buy Motorola Mobility."

You might wanna pull your head out of your arse and look up the term yourself there matey.

Now, obvisouly, if you where so sure of yourself you wouldn't be hiding behind AC, but for others as confused as AC wiki, can as always send you in the proper direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll [wikipedia.org]

Now a patent troll is *often* someone without an actual product, but Apple is indeed a troll since they are using their patents to try to force other players out of the market *while ignoring* said players port

I'm posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log into website from work. Want to know who I am? whisper_jeff Feel free to do a search for me and add me to your ignore list if you'd like. I'm fine with it.

As for your definition, the first paragraph of your link: "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered (by the party using the term) unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to man

"those patents are considered essential patents and thus Motorola is forced to license them at reasonable terms"What is this concept of essential patents? The information i can find only applies to those made available to standards bodies, not sure how deactivating the touch sensor when next to a person's ear or data compression or any of the others mentioned in the article apply.Please can you provide more information.

I'm actually on the board of a technical standards committee (The South African Bureau of Standards) that does all official standards for our country. FRAND (where I am anyway) *only* applies in cases of standardisation - where implementing a patent is the only way to meet a National Standard *and* the patent holder was part of the standardisation process.

Not sure where you get the idea that FRAND applies to anything that is widely used, or is a defacto/ad hoc standard. It applies only in a very narrow use-case.

From what I've seen over the past few years, [hardware and patent trolling] are synonymous.

I thought the accepted definition of "patent trolling" on Slashdot was the practice of a nonpracticing entity, or one that holds and enforces patents but doesn't produce its own implementation of the invention. This definition would disqualify hardware makers (e.g. Motorola) and blueprint makers (e.g. ARM and Fraunhofer) from "troll" classification.

That's weird, I'm reading e-mail off our Exchange server on my Evo 4G as we speak. Never had a problem with it. I'm not sure about disk encryption but it certainly has remote wipe and all the other nonsense our IS department needs.

Thank fuck you blew your cred with "WM was the top dog before the iPhone came out", completely ignoring Symbian and Nokia.

Then please allow me to rephrase: "WM was the top dog in the United States market before the iPhone came out." Nokia doesn't have much presence in the country where Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Slashdot are headquartered.

The top dog in the US market would have been RIM, not Windows Mobile and certainly not Nokia.

WM was the top dog among people who didn't want to spend effort developing real mobile applications (to the extent that you could do that on, say, BlackBerry OS or Symbian) and just shovelled Microsoft development tools and old code at handhelds because it was cheap and easy. In that sense, it owned certain vertical markets (warehousing, point of sale, courier) where it was used to run client applications. Web app

It said in the article that it used the 4 of the 18 patents to recieve an undisclosed upfront payment from BlackBerry and is now receiving royalities from them when it forced a cross licensing agreement.

It will be interesting to see if Google allow the iPhone5 to launch. Clearly, when the situation is reversed, the whole product is banned [techradar.com], but as we all know Google do no evil. Or is evil justified when it's the only way of dealing with the evil being done by another?